Theological navel-gazing

God made it look old? Has Gosse gone of his proper christian bottle?! Everyone knows that it was the devil who planted the bones to give the impression of the old earth, to make us disbelieve god. That's why children must be taught the controversy in science classes:

https://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/devil.gif

Just as they should be taught the controversy about light speed being variable by orders of magnitude to explain light from 12 billion years away reaching us when it's all supposed to be less than 10000 years old. Lots more controversies to be taught:

https://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/geocentric.gif
https://controversy.wearscience.com/img450/turtle.gif

Is it common for YECs to carry organ donor cards? I mean, if you're going to leave behind your brain in perfectly new, unused condition, why not let someone else benefit from it?

greets,
Peter

Love this subject. I present to you the Argument from Looking Like a Pillock:

1) Anybody who has no navel looks like a pillock.

2) God created Adam to be perfect.

3) No perfect human could also look like a pillock.

4) Therefore, God created Adam with a navel, lest he look like a pillock.

By the way, I really should point readers to one of the best versions of the above painting:

HERE

I don't think it is anything natural. In the news story linked, there is some explanation about it, however. But I believe strongly that she did some type of operation to smooth it out. Whatever the case, the smooth belly button is rather distracting and unattractive for even a supermodel. I believe everything has to be natural.

William, you should get out more!

Vlad - I believe Jordan is coming to agree with you. I am sure I read somewhere she is now seeking (or perhaps has already achieved) mammary reduction...

Karolina Kurkova DOES have a belly button. Do a Google image search using her name and you`ll find plenty of photos of her displaying her tummy button.

I guess for this particular fashion show either makeup or Photoshop was used to hide it. (Another idea on the navel issue was that she is really a mannequin made of two parts plastic to one part latex. ...) Does no one ever think of doing even a basic check on stories such as these?

As a way of getting attention for herself and the shops she was promoting it appears to have been a wildly successful strategy; I`d never heard of her before this, had you?

Philip Henry Gosse was an expert on marine invertebrates and the David Attenborough of his day. He was also a member of the plymouth brethern and the omphalos hypothesis was the product of his intellectual conflict between his scientific knowledge and his religious beliefs. he really thought he had reconciled the findings of geology with genesis only to be exposed to painful disillusionment when his theory was greeted with ridicule or ignored completely in the light of Darwins publication of the origin of species a couple of years later. Gosse's son Edmund later published a book -father and Son- relating his childhood and upbringing and the struggle between two temperaments, two consciences and two epochs!

William

I think it would be a mistake to suggest that Gosse is the leading or indeed only viewpoint on these matters.

You could be dangerously close to knocking down a straw man at this length of time since he penned his pamphlet!

I have yet to find a convincing creationist scientific explanation for a young earth in terms of geology etc.

However, I spoke with a senior geologist academic recently who said the affirmed old earthers were giving the impression that they had virtually absolute certainty on the matter when he said this was simply not true. (he was an old earther).

I have asked a few times here, but would still be interested to see hyperlinks to any actual peer reviewed articles on the radiometric dating of the earth...

...and while William mentions it papers dating the earth using tree trunks too.

No doubt it will not be long until several persons appear as by magic on this thread


-Questioning my integrity
-Trying to attack / undermine my personal life
-Trying to attach labels to me which I reject, in order to try and discredit me.


I think we would be much better convinced by such people if their just gave us hyperlinks to the peer reviewed papers on which they depend.


;-)

OT

PS One of CS Lewis' first steps to faith was to admit to himself the irrational approach he always took to the resurrection of Christ, when as a literary historian he knew in his heart of hearts he should have been cool and objective. That is not to suggest that Christian faith in any way requires belief in creationism or a young earth fyi (it doesnt!)

PPS All creationist geological papers I have read for a young earth that I have read have been wholly unconvincing!

in my experience peer reviewed papers are often hedged about with many assumptions and qualifications which very much undermine the certainty which some attribute to them.


Again, William have you got any hyperlinks to any peer reviewed papers on an old earth and tree trunk dating of the earth?

Or anyone else?

Thanks
OT

A paper often cited is by Patterson, C. (1956) Age of meteorites and the Earth. Published in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 10, 230-237.
Pattison was one of the first to date earth`s age at 4.55 billion years. This age was based on uranium-lead isotope measurements from the meteorite Canyon Diablo. There doesn`t seem to be a copy available online, but a University library may be able to help locate a copy.
There`s an outline by the U.S Geological Survey of how earth`s age is determined here:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Google for `age of earth` and you`ll find many more pages.
Google for ` radiometric dating` to find out more on this topic.

Thanks for that Jay

I notice again that this is not a peer reviewed paper but an outline only.

Nevertheless I note with interest the opening comments;-

".....scientists have been able to determine the ***probable*** age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by ***assuming*** that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."


I don't want to overstate any case here because it is not my field but it would be interesting to see some actual papers linked here for comparison sake.

thanks again Jay

OT

..come to think of it, the first few lines are probably worth reading slowly;-


"So far scientists have *not* found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been ***recycled and destroyed*** by the process of plate tectonics.

"If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN FOUND.


"Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the ***probable*** age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by ***assuming*** that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age....

"The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, ***presumed*** single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite."


- none of earth's 4.6bn year old rocks remain to test, that we know of.

- probable, not certain, estimates have been made of the earth's age.

- this is based on assumptions about the age of other bodies in our solar system; but how secure are these assumptions?

- does anyone know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?


Will have you read much further into this that you can help perhaps?

cheers


OT

The link I gave was of an article giving an overview of how the age of the earth is determined by geologists etc using radiometric dating; I never claimed it was a peer reviewed paper, as I think you realise.
Patterson’s paper that I cited was peer reviewed. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta is a peer reviewed journal. It’s the journal of both the USA’s Geochemical and the Meteoritical Societies and publishes original research in physical chemistry, petrology, terrestrial chemical processes, inorganic and organic geochemistry, isotope geochemistry and planetary science.

Since Patterson there have been many other studies dating rocks, and the elements they contain, from around the world, the moon and asteroid remains. Much of the planet has now been surveyed by geologists, often sponsored by governments and companies; the geologists’ mill grinds quite fine.
All this has contributed many papers that that buttress Pattison’s findings of the earth being 4.5 billion years old.
If you want another peer reviewed paper then try: `Age of the World's Oldest Rocks Refined Using Canada's SHRIMP: The Acasta Gneiss Complex, Northwest Territories, Canada.` R. Stern, W. Bleeker. Geoscience Canada, Volume 25, No 1 (1998). They dated Zircon grains from a deformed igneous rock [Acasta Gneiss Complex, Northwest Territories] at 4.3 billion years. There are many others if you know which academic journals to look in. If you wish to disprove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old then you’re going to have to demonstrate that radiometric dating techniques, in their entirety, don’t stand up.

I think the ultimate question is not about the age of the earth or the universe or how humans came into being, but how the universe was created and what went before? It’s possibly a question we’ll never be able to answer satisfactorily or even have the minds that could answer this or understood it. So I remain agnostic on that. Is there a personal God, an afterlife and so on? I doubt it; that may be my loss, but I just don’t have those beliefs. As long as peoples’ beliefs remain a personal matter and they don’t force them into schools, politics or other peoples lives against their wishes then I’m content to let people believe what they want.
------------------------------------
`does anyone know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?`
Do you know how to use Google or a library?

Hi Jay

Thanks again for your detailed thoughts.

I dont have a science background, like many visitors here and my point was to underline in the first instance how many people might take the 4.6bn years estimate at face value without ever checking it out for themselves.

It is an entirely fair and relevant point to ask for links to actual peer reviewed papers; a summary paper need not spell out the actual uncertainties and assumptions that underlie a 4.6 bn year estimate.

Have you ever read such a paper yourself? has William? are either of you aware of the assumptions and uncertainties that I understand must be stated in such?

I entirely agree that the age of the earth is not the ultimate question and I think *I* would be very brave/foolish to set out to prove that radiometric dates don't stand up.

However, if it is appropriate for William to bait visitors on the subject and appropriate for you to challenge me, then it is appropriate to have a minor civil debate on the subject, IMHO.

I also think, if you dont mind me saying, that it is pretty naive to suggest that as long as people's beliefs arent forced into schools then you're content to let them believe what they want.

Schools always have and always will be an ideological battle ground that are constantly under assault from a myriad of interest groups lobbying to have their views introdcued one way or another.

Perhaps what you mean is that you are happy that the status quo on this matter reflects your own views (and the major scientific consensus) and you are happy with that.

It is worth pointing out that while I am not convinced by science arguments for a young earth, an agnostic position is rationally unsustainable without an old age viewpoint.

So it must be said that many/most people have an intellectual and emotional predisposition to interpreting these facts. This of course applies to people of faith too.

Because without it (an old earth) evolution cannot be sustained and without evolution agnostics/athiests find their entire belief system crumbling.

That explains why there is frequently such stubborn prejudice, personal attacks and general high feelings on the matter. From both sides of the spectrum.

I think I presented my question wrongly - do YOU know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?

kind regards
OT

Oh dear PB! same as ever!

Jay if you do attempt to enter a debate with PB/OT etc etc it should come with a warning...

"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

I see that PB repeats the same boring, tired old canards that he has been corrected on so many times!

I love it when PB cites science papers and highlights words like "presume" etc as if this is somehow wrong! when if fact it shows the strength of science! This was of course pointed out to PB on many occasions but as ever ignored!

Pb If you get a moment you have left many, many unanswered questions!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/10/science_and_belief_duel_or_due.html

and here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06/can_gay_people_be_straighened.html

I could go back further! as you do have a very unfortunate reputation for running away!

"Because without it (an old earth) evolution cannot be sustained and without evolution agnostics/athiests find their entire belief system crumbling."

Ha ha! PB please don't worry intelligent/enlightened Christians have no probs with the age of the Earth...such as Francis Collins-have you ever heard of him? as he would...oh what is that saying?-oh yes! undermine your argument!:-/

"That explains why there is frequently such stubborn prejudice, personal attacks and general high feelings on the matter. From both sides of the spectrum."

It is from one side PB and I am glad that you are (sort of) acknowledging for your behaviour in the past.

"do YOU know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?"

Oh PB, please, please DO inform of us of your extensive knowledge of radiometric dating!? because on at least two occasions you stated..."only a few labs do radiometric dating" you were asked on both occasions (and later) to back this up but...as ever you ran away!

"It is worth pointing out that while I am not convinced by science arguments for a young earth"

!? very odd PB! since for over a year and half you argued passionately for YECreationism!? goodness if that is the case I would not like to debate with you on a position that you did believe in!

Kindest regards

DD

Jay m15

"`does anyone know what assumptions radiometric dating uses?`
Do you know how to use Google or a library?"

Apparently PB doesn't! strange since myself and others have shown PB/OT many, many links to dedicated science sites in which PB could ask questions of scientists working in related fields but...they are never followed up!

Very odd when taking into consideration that during PB/OT etc etc time on this blog he has revealed stunning nobel prize winning info on how all of science are wrong! unbelievable!

Regards

DD

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

PB/OT

"No doubt it will not be long until several persons appear as by magic on this thread


-Questioning my integrity
-Trying to attack / undermine my personal life
-Trying to attach labels to me which I reject, in order to try and discredit me."

Hey presto! well PB if you did not insist on continually running away then we would not have to continually bring past views/statements from you!

PB do you actually think that you have "integrity"!?

We know nothing about your personal life!?

You *are* a Protestant fundamentalist and indeed are a stereotypical eg of the species as well as being a Ken Ham fan-well you did post many, many messages in favour of YECreationism!

Anyway nice try at the old 'I'm a victim' thingy but it doesn't wash with the long time posters here!

Regards

DD

I dont think Will was saying that Gosse and his book is the state of the art view on any of this. correct me if im wrong but i think this post by Will is supposed to be a little tongue in cheek ... Will?

Hello OT,

Interesting to see how, as DD points out, you are so much contradicting your own Young Earth Creationist posting record of the past two years on this blog. So many times you put up AiG pages, quoted AiGs 'geologist' Andrew Snelling, went on about variable light speed to explain the light from faraway galaxies reaching us, tried to talk away the fossil record (and even more often ignored information about it presented to you), posted various quote mines and fabrications in defence of your YEC views, etc. And now you disown YECist geology?!

It makes sense that you complain about every post that refers to your previous posts and that you keep assuming new identities all the time if you've come to see sense about what you always used to say. You must be feeling a deep sense of shame and embarrassment, right?

Do I read correctly that you are radically distancing yourself from your past? I would applaud that, as it is a past fraught with less than honest behaviour. Could you clarify if you are indeed distancing yourself from all YEC canards you've tried to make the readers of this blog swallow for two years?

greets,
Peter

Hello jayfurneaux,

You've picked an interesting time to engage OT (formerly PB/originalPB/PBmild on this blog) on YECism, age of the earth etc. A little word of warning though: PB has been the voice of YECism on this blog for years, wielding every (usually less than honest) tool in the YEC arsenal). There is a page about such people that applies to him so brilliantly well:

https://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm

So I would be much on your guard about OT/PB making you waste tons of time gathering information which he'll then likely ignore (or cherry pick for those tiny bits convenient to him, ignoring the majority rest of it), switch topic, divert attention, attribute positions or statements to people they never took (when did Will ever mention tree trunks?) etc. PB/OT has left open sooooh many questions. Those who have been on the blog for longer tend to drag him back to answering those before letting him go off on new tangents.

greets,
Peter

Hi DD,

It seems OT has basically thrown in the towel and seeks to distance himself from his past identities on this blog and his real identity as pastor at that church we can't name anymore. While reminding him of his past identities and old posts on this blog seems to be allowed, naming his real name or linking to the page of the church where he is pastor is against the blog rules it seems.

greets,
Peter

PeterK

"Do I read correctly that you are radically distancing yourself from your past? I would applaud that, as it is a past fraught with less than honest behaviour. Could you clarify if you are indeed distancing yourself from all YEC canards you've tried to make the readers of this blog swallow for two years?"

Peter I would not hold your breath in attempting to get an answer to your simple question as it has been asked before...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/expelled_or_flunked_redux.html

m243 and so forth but as ever(sigh!) just prevarication and bluster!

I believe what has happened with PB/OT is that he is still the same fundamentalist young earth creationist he always was, he just does not argue the position as he knows he did such a terrible job and was caught out on so many occasions telling falsehoods.

I think what occurred was here in this thread...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

PB cites typical canards about fossils corresponding to the Bible etc(you know what I mean Peter!)PB as ever is asked a series of very simple questions to back up his stunning views but! guess what? he ran away! Then Pb admitted that he was reading a book by Aleister McGrath and that is where he is getting his "ideas" from.

Regards

DD

Hi Peter m24

It seems that is the case Peter. It is very strange that PB should be constantly citing his new mantra eg., "I have never found young-earth arguments convincing..." (when he certainly did for over two years!?) and the church site states that it is definite young-earth AIG!? mmmm very, very odd Peter-could be case for Mulder and Scully or failing that Scooby doo!

Regards

DD

It's not just the navel that betrays our embryological origin - it's our entire phenotype! If Adam had been created from scratch, he would have just been a pair of wandering testicles with a penis.

I'll leave it to the ladies to decide whether there's any distinction there with the regular male phenotype...

Or, more simply, one testicle.

just worth mentioning Blessed Nicolas Steno, the father of modern geology. So often people try to place science and religion in opposition. There is an interesting book on him "The Seashell on the Mountaintop: a story of science, sainthood, and the humble genius who discovered a new history of the earth".

So nobody here has ever read a peer reviewed on radiom dating, nor knows assumptions and qualifications of same?

OT/PB

Any chance of you answering any of the very *simple* questions that have been put to you?-the links are above. It is very hypocritical of you to ask questions when you can't answer some very *simple* questions.

In any case why should we listen to you about "radiom" dating when you have such a terrible and dishonest record on writing about radiometric dating?

Has anyone here actually read a paper on radiometric dating?

Hello OT,

"Has anyone here actually read a paper on radiometric dating?"

Sure pastor, see e.g. posts 12 and 15 by jayfurneaux in this thread. It thought it was obvious from those alone.

Peter

OT
On radiometric dating etc.
You previously mentioned a geologist who believed that pronouncements on the age of the Earth were being made with too much certitude.
Now certainly this would seem to be the case on the age of the Universe. Astronomers do seem to keep making revisions. So I can't see any reason to doubt what you geologist friend said.
But this doesn't help Creation Science/ Young Earth creationism at all. Let's imagine that Scientists have made massive errors calculating Red-shift etc. Lets imagine they have overestimated the age of the Universe by, say 10 Billion years. Say also, for the sake of argument, that geologists are out by 3 or 4 billion years.
You are still not even close to the tens of thousands of years required by Young Earth Creationism.
The only way out, so far as I can tell, is to embrace some strong form of operationalism - to say that science makes useful, but not true, predictions. But (a) Creationists want to appeal to science in their Design arguments and (b) it is far from clear that Genesis chapter 1 should be interpreted as literal history. Scripture does not warrant such an extreme move.

G Veale

OT/PB

Please tell us the results of your research!! Would it be like here?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html

In which you were again shown to be using fallacious arguments? and for that matter engaging in the dishonest practice known as quote-mining in m205! And PB why in the name of Sam Hill do you waste your time posting here (no offence to Will Crawley) your earth-shattering opinions on radiometric dating? I mean all those 100's of labs and 1000's of scientists who use this method would be very interested to hear! Yet you said "few labs do radiometric dating" mmmm, don't worry PB it's on that looonnngg list!

Also for that matter all the world's natural resource companies who use radiometric dating! I have posted links many,many times to you PB of dedicated science sites-but you rather strangely never post on them!

I see I had a post removed-ha!

Regards

DD

Perhaps we should stick to calling OT by his preferred online name. And perhaps a person should be given a chance to reinvent themselves. It wouldn't do any harm, and it would keep our posts online.

GV

Graham

If OT would stick by a name fair enough but they do change their name quite regularly(usually to escape moderation). If the poster in question would stick to their present name then fair enough and actually behave civilly.

DD

DD
One poster, one name would seem to be a fair prinicple. So OT should remain OT if things are to stay fair.
GV

Hello Graham,

You mention giving a person the opportunity to reinvent themselves. Do you think such a process should involve the person owing up to their dishonest past, maybe admitting their deceits. Very maybe even distancing themselves from them. And very very very maybe apologizing to the readers of this blog for lying for jesus and grossly insulting the intelligence of most readers by thinking they would fall for his petty lies?

It could go a good bit further. We could just ask our not-to-be-named pastor to acknowledge directly that his performance has been an example of his christian faith being the catalyst for extensive, protracted dishonesty. But maybe that's going a bit far.

What do you think, should reinvention of a persons character involve some degree of owing up to the past and distancing themselves from it? I think that would not be such a bad idea.

greets,
Peter

PeterK,

On the basis of the facts, as you have presented them, what you say is incontrovertible.
Obviously, I have no direct knowledge of lies, deceits etc. I have never challenged any Young Earth Creationists on the detail of their science. So I'm not in a position to make a value judgment.

(As an aside, I held to the YEC position as an A-Level student, but Flood Geology seemed shaky to me. Studying Genesis changed my position. Flood geology doesn't "fit". It didn't take scientific debate to change my mind).

However, OT will most likely remain plain OT. I think the best that we will be able to do is judge OT's posts. That may not be ideal. It may not be the fairest solution. But I think it's the only solution available.
I've no difficulty in apologising for causing offence, especially when I did not intend to cause offence. But you could end up waiting from Godot here. I don't think an apology is coming.

But if posters stick to the name OT, then there will be no excuse for hitting complaint button. That will at least keep discussion flowing.

GV

Graham,

Fair post from you. I am willing to call OT or indeed any other name which they wish to be known. However as PeterK has pointed out the same poster cannot disassociate themselves from their past posts. I have provided plenty of links to past posts by OT in which I(and others) believe OT has told lies and then compounded his dishonesty-the easiest thing for OT would be(if they believe they are telling the truth)is back up his claims but...they never do. I know you are relatively new here but I believe that you have got a flavour of the futile attempts to try to engage OT in rational debate.

One small example...OT has been claiming recently that he..."never found the evidence for YEC(Biblical creationism) convincing" yet the long term posters on here can remember that over a period that OT did nothing *but* argue for this position! very strange for someone who says "never"!? here is a small eg

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html

It's message 28 and throughout the thread they repeat the tired old canards. So I believe it is fair game to ask this poster if they repudiate their "former" position-which they have but personally I don't believe it.

As PeterK points out it is actually OT's absolutist, fundamentalist faith that drives him to be dishonest(please note Graham by this statement I am *NOT* saying that all Christians are like this-only a very vocal minority who do not resemble the Christians that I have the personal pleasure to know), and pointing out these issues to OT sends him into cognitive dissonance freefall.

Anyway enough for now

DD

To be fair, OT's claim that he is not YEC took me by surprise.That is not the impression I recieved when discussing Creationism in the classroom. Or here, up until that comment.
Perhaps he can clarify the apparent inconsistency.

Just as a general comment, aimed at no-one, I agree with DD. It is permissable, and can be admirable, to change your position after a period of reflection. But you should make it clear that your position has changed. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to refute a person.

(Think of Squealer in "Animal Farm". Or the Party in "1984".)

GV

In any case, it was nice to have the excuse to investigate Karolina Kurkova. Although I must be aging. I keep thinking "When *I* was a teenager, the supermodels were much more attractive. AND they had their own belly-buttons."

Shouldn't we have had a shot of the alleged navel instead of Adam? It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. Although admittedly I don't get out much.

Hi Graham,

"To be fair, OT's claim that he is not YEC took me by surprise.That is not the impression I recieved when discussing Creationism in the classroom. Or here, up until that comment."

Is OT in your class?

Peter

Graham

I read those comments by OT in the creationism in the classroom thread and they are classic Ken Ham/YEC canards that incidentally been asked by OT many times and answered many times.

I agree with your second paragraph-we have given OT ample opportunity and scope to clarify his present position eg., does he refute his "old" YEC arguments however...all we have got is silence.

I am a big fan of Orwell BTW! and love Animal Farm.

You are right Graham, perhaps this thread should be about investigating Karolina Kurkova as she is certainly worth investigating further...a shot of her lack of belly button would have been more interesting and that link to AIG was just to painful!

DD

PK
Heaven forbid! I should have said "1/3 of Teachers support Creationism in the Classroom Thread"
I have to say that I haven't had a single complaint from YEC parents, which has surprised me. I certainly don't promote it. Whereas concerns have been raised (just in informal conversation on open nights etc.) over teaching Islam.

I've discovered what might be a more edifying discussion on Science and Religion online.

https://www.veritas.org/media/talks/588

G Veale

Hi again Graham

sorry have been busy a few days with work etc...

just as an aside from origins for a few posts... I am curious about your faith if you don't mind me asking...

What does Christ mean to you personally and why should this faith matter whatsoever to the people around us, in your view?

I'm interested to know where you are coming from generally to help me understand your thinking...

best regards
OT

Hi OT,

When you have a moment could you perhaps answer some points that have been put to you? you do have a worrying habit of running away.

Lets start here...(I have only been asking for a year and a half)

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

I followed your criteria don't forget! now could you actually back this up or admit that you have told a falsehood?

Would you mind me asking about your faith? if so it has become very transparent that your faith has made you dishonest(see above posts and links-if you need anymore evidence I will provide it). Now that is not me saying that you are dishonest rather your fundamentalist faith has forced you into extreme cognitive dissonance. Do you think that your behaviour is a very edifying example of faith? (although I would say that your faith is very atypical of a protestant fundamentalist).

Regards

DD

OT

You complained about a post of mine above and it appears to have been removed.

Here goes again...

You said...

"Because without it (an old earth) evolution cannot be sustained and without evolution agnostics/atheists find their entire belief system crumbling."

Mmmm well if that is the case OT then "agnostics/atheists "(and the majority of theists) can out their feet up, crack open a beer and chill! because (old earth)evolution is as you know one of the best supported theories in science which I you use every day and...so do you!

OT the real people who are fearful are Protestant fundamentalists who must accept a literal interpretation of Genesis or else their entire belief system crumbles. By your own criteria then OT, Protestant fundamentalism has crumbled and is utterly useless. A literal Genesis was shown to be rubbish even before Darwin and was shown to be-by Christians! As you know Biblical creationism is silly and nonsense-I mean OT it is THAT silly no-one use it...least of all...Biblical creationists!

Regards

DD

Hello OT,

Welcome back after your busy work.

DDs questions about your current position seems very relevant. It's no exaggeration to say that your position on this blog has been all over the place during the past two years. After a long period of voicing every YEC canard in the book (peddling more than just a few dishonesties in the process), you recently renounced YEC geology. So what is your position now? Are you owing up to your dark fundamentalist christian past? Do you openly distance yourself from that dishonest nonsense you held for a long time and that you tried to peddle to others? Do you accept that in your mind christianity has been a powerful catalyst for dishonesty? If so, is such a shift also reflected in what you preach to your church flock now?

greets,
Peter

Hi Graham

In post 34 you say it is far from clear from scripture that Genesis should be read as literal history.

I find myself having to agree in substantial measure with you there.

(Just because I test a particular idea does not mean I hold it as absolute truth or the only possible explanation).

Interested in your views on the following though;-

How do fit into your analysis the passage where Christ says that marriage was created at the beginning of creation ie in Matthew 19.4.

It seems fairly clear he is citing the marriage of Adam and Eve. And if their marriage was created at the begining of creation, as he appears to say, it also appears far from clear (to me anyway) how to resolve this with interpretations which suggests man evolved over millions of years before they came to the Adam and Eve stage.


We also have Jude apparently saying that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam (see below).

Of course the term "generation" in this translation is a paraphrase insertion. But it does appear to support a literal reading of the geneologies (albeit for the first 8 generations only!)

Also, what is your take on Adam and Eve? I notice that organisations as diverse as IVP, YFC, Christianity Today and the Billy Graham Association endorse or produce teaching materials which teach plainly that they were two real people??

Must run,

God bless
OT



Jude (Amp Bible)

see verse 14

10But these men revile (scoff and sneer at) anything they do not happen to be acquainted with and do not understand; and whatever they do understand physically [that which they know by mere instinct], like irrational beasts--by these they corrupt themselves and are destroyed (perish).

11Woe to them! For they have run riotously in the way of Cain, and have abandoned themselves for the sake of gain [it offers them, following] the error of Balaam, and have perished in rebellion [like that] of Korah!(C)

12These are hidden reefs (elements of danger) in your love feasts, where they boldly feast sumptuously [carousing together in your midst], without scruples providing for themselves [alone]. They are clouds without water, swept along by the winds; trees, without fruit at the late autumn gathering time--twice (doubly) dead, [lifeless and] plucked up by the roots;

13Wild waves of the sea, flinging up the foam of their own shame and disgrace; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of eternal darkness has been reserved forever.

14It was of these people, moreover, that Enoch in the seventh [generation] from Adam prophesied when he said, Behold, the Lord comes with His myriads of holy ones (ten thousands of His saints)

15To execute judgment upon all and to convict all the impious (unholy ones) of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed [in such an] ungodly [way], and of all the severe (abusive, jarring) things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

16These are inveterate murmurers (grumblers) who complain [of their lot in life], going after their own desires [controlled by their passions]; their talk is boastful and arrogant, [and they claim to] admire men's persons and pay people flattering compliments to gain advantage.

OT
I believe that Adam and Eve existed and fell. It's one I take on faith. I don't like Theistic Evolutionary accounts of Gen 1-3 any more than YEC accounts. They were real, they were in a real relationship with God, they fell from it.
Beyond that I don't speculate.

G Veale

OT

Strange you should quote the Bible...when the Bible says that you should not tell lies nor bear false witness. Sins which you have broken many times.

Here is one example out of many...
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

It is very hypocritical of you to quote the Bible and profess to live by its teachings yet so readily break the most basic rules. I believe the problem is your fundamentalist faith which has set up extreme cognitive dissonance in your mind.

Whilst we are quoting the Bible I believe that Matt 23:1-39 is very apt for you. Jesus warns of religious hypocrites.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

"Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

Maybe you should actually read the Bible sometime?

DD

Hello Graham,

Your post 53 leaves me wondering. Could you describe please up to which point (e.g how far back in time) you go along with what theistic evolution says, and at what point your agreement with what it says breaks down? I suppose I could leave out the 'theistic' bit and ask up to what point you agree with the theory of evolution.

Hello OT,

You seem rather selective in which posts you respond to. You have been asked many times, by several people on this blog, including a few christians, about your past statements, to which degree various dishonesties in those statements were directly inspired by your christian beliefs, and if your recent posts mean that you distance yourself from the fundamentalist nonsense you've been voicing here for two years.

I'll assume your silence means you concede the various points?

greets,
Peter

Graham

ahem,

ref posts 52 and 53

I think that due to the amount of ribbing/challenges you have thrown down to me for my posts in the past few weeks you are (humourously) obligated to give me a better explanation than that, especially on the New Testament verses I cite.

Otherwise I will presume the subject is too scary

;-)



DD, ref quantum science,
if you can sum up in your own words both sides of this argument to date I will re-engage. You havent tried to understand the issues.

Peter K
If everything I say is "a lie" then why on earth would you want to talk to me?

kinds regards
OT

OT

It is very *simple* you made a statement "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." now either it is true or it is false-I have given you ample opportunity to date to correct yourself-something which you have refused to do. I ma saying that your statement is made up/a falsehood and a bare-faced lie and as such since you do not refute it-you are a liar! I played by your rules gave you a small selection of falsehoods that I and others have gave you and we are still on the first one!

Sum up in my own words!? errr well since I have been on with you PB the "debate" (if you can loosely call a conversation with you that!) has been about science versus pseudo-science. You have been great at repeating canards and falsehoods but not so great at actually producing positive evidence for your position(which changes and adapts). You have given us great insights at the workings(if one may call it that) of the fundamentalist "mind".

It is very hypocritical of you to say that I haven't tried to understand the issues when you just repeat the same tired old creationist propaganda. You have asked repeatedly for scientific evidence/answers on a variety of questions/issues which were provided yet these have been ignored on every occasion and then repeated-you have shown yourself to be a complete waste of time/effort and an unfortunate example of Protestant/Biblical fundamentalism. The long-term posters know the type of person you are and thankfully you have shown to the newer posters here the type of person you are by complaining about posts that have the temerity to disagree with you.

So lets cut the crap/prevarication/bluster and either acknowledge you told a falsehood/lie or if you still stand by your statement back it up with evidence.

Far be if from me to answer on behalf of Peter but one of the reasons why I am so interested in you and why we wish to address to the litany of lies that you have told is that (personally speaking) I am concerned at anyone being corrupted by your wilfully ignorant remarks on science.

Kindest regards

DD

Peter m56

"I'll assume your silence means you concede the various points?"

It does appear so Peter, it seems like we are going to get the usual time-wasting/smoke & mirrors/prevarication. I predict that OT will do the usual eg., run away then wait awhile start up the same old garbage-get challenged-run away etc .Maybe we did some good Peter(as well as the other long term posters) as OT seems to have moved away from Ken Ham(and he did used to be his greatest fan) though this was a position that OT "never found convincing" mmm:-/ Maybe I was too premature in my thoughts on OT, he probably is just as wilfully ignorant, dishonest and arrogant as he always was.

Ah well!

Dd

Hello OT, you wrote

"If everything I say is "a lie" then why on earth would you want to talk to me?"

Because you are such a gift to atheism. Few long-time readers of this blog will have any doubt that your fundamentalist christian beliefs are a powerful catalyst for disingenuous behaviour. Please keep posting, I'm all for demonstrating that to the readers of this blog. It is gratifying that now and then other christians are critical of you, not just atheists.

And since you're once again not addressing points put to you by DD and myself, it is clear then that you're empty. Intellectually empty.

greets,
Peter

OT
Fair point. In my defence I was writing a rather long reply to your question about my faith, which is under the "Advertising Watchdog" thread.
My initial response to Jude would be to point out that Jude was fond of Apocalyptic material. (If he was asking us to read that literally, then we're in trouble. Yet he would *seem* to take Apocalytic literally, and to be quoting it as Scripture. You don't want the books of Enoch in the canon any more than I do. So we need to be careful when asking what *exactly* is the Holy Spirit teaching).
Enoch was a popular character in Apocalyptic which was not meant to be read literally. He is the sixth generation mentioned after Adam, but given the context, I doubt that he was giving hermeneutical advice for interpreting Genesis. I don't really think much can be read into Jude's statement. And if a YEC does, he'll be creating huge problems for the canon.

Perhaps you want a little more than this - my take on Genesis 1-3? That would be quite a lot of writing, but if you listen to the following lectures

https://www.amoskeagchurch.org/broadcastindex.php?dir=./sermons/Granite%20State%20School/Meredith%20G%20Kline/Old%20Testament%20Exegesis

https://www.chestertonhouse.org/static/audio/middleton/Middleton_Roundtable.mp3

or read the following articles

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/CSR5-95Young.html


you'll get an idea as to where I'm coming from. The three articles in particular would accurately outline my position.

G Veale

.Gv, how very evasive. You are very consciously dodging questions about the nt. why? Also open questions from pk above...

OT

How very evasive. You have been consciously dodging questions here for over 2 years and then...accusing someone else of doing the same! how...hypocritical!

Hello OT,

Trust me pastor, one open question in a slightly older thread that slipped past Graham wouldn't make me think he is deliberately dodging.

The myriad of open questions to you for the past two years however...... I mean, just look at the reminders in this thread alone.

I guess it must be uncomfortable for you that a couple of the veteran atheists on this blog can spot every one of your tactics from miles away and that when called out very cleary, as in this thread, you can't do anything but look at your computer screen and let it pain your mind yet a bit more. :)

Unless of course you are now going to present a convincing answer to the link between QM and evolution, the number of labs doing radiometric dating, transitional fossils, your gross inconsistency re. flood geology and the many, many other questions you've left open so far.

greets,
Peter

Graham

Come on that is no answer at all.

;-)

Are you suggesting that Jude's ref to the genelogy was apocalyptic? Nonsense.

You have given me three sermons and four articles to read???? Cant you speak for yourself in plain language.... or are you floundering????

In a sense the context is irrelvant at this point of the discussion if we both agree on the meaning of the verse we have got past that.


If you are claiming respect for scriptural authority and at the same time deriding my understanding of it in non too charitable terms (as you have done for the past few weeks) and yet also refusing to debunk or discuss my understanding, I think that leaves you on pretty shaky ground indeed!

;-)

If the generations before Abraham are to be taken to mean real generations without any missing generations, that takes us up to Abraham, who has been placed in actual history.

Taking with the marriage of Adam and Eve being at the start of creation, it poses serious difficulties in reconciling this with mainstream geology.

Are you an approved workman, as Paul put it to Timothy?

I also have to say, mainstream Christianity has, by rule of thumb, always kept pretty close to the plain reading of scriptures down through history, and has repeatedly come back to this viewpoint for "new life".

I understand this is consistent with a carpenter who used farm parables to communicate with ordinary people and who wanted a priesthood of all believers. He wanted ordinary people to understand ordinary language.

The obvious exceptions would be poetry, or any passage which explicitly says it requires interpretation eg apocalyptic material.



PK, DD, it should be obvious to you by now that nobody is interested in your campaign as outlined above.

Even Graham has distanced himself from your claims that my challenges to evolutionary theory are "lies".

That would only be the case it evolution were absolute truth, but you would have to have a fundementalist religious trust in it for that to be the case. Therefore my questions or challenges could never have been "lies" could they?

I have comprehensively dealt with every issue you ever raised, and as you have nothing new to add, neither have I guys.

sorry, but that would be a waste of time.

OT

PS Graham, come on now you also owe Peter Klaver an answer to post 55!

;-)

Oh dear OT!

Same old prevarication and bluster as usual!

"it should be obvious to you by now that nobody is interested in your campaign as outlined above."

Not at all! the long term posters know what you are like and fortunately the newer posters have been given a glimpse of what it is like to deal with you.

"Even Graham has distanced himself from your claims that my challenges to evolutionary theory are "lies"."

Has he!? well now this would be the *simplest* thing to do...back up your claims! thats all we are asking! That is very *simple* but then again we are dealing with a fundamentalist.

"That would only be the case it evolution were absolute truth, but you would have to have a fundementalist religious trust in it for that to be the case."

This has all been explained to you before but as ever you are wilfully ignorant. Evolution is a scientific theory and the best explanation was have. Nothing to do with a fundamentalist religious trust-just evidence. Whereas your position is only backed up by Protestant fundies and as you have illustrated over the past 2 years the info they present is discredited, dishonest and that stupid and useless that not even they use it!

"Therefore my questions or challenges could never have been "lies" could they?"

Sometimes it is frightening to be given a glimpse into the "workings" of the fundamentalist mindset! Yes they are lies that can be evaluated and measured-it really is a *simple* concept-intelligent Christians get it so you really should not worry about it.

You see this statement

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Well what you do if you believe this statement to be true(hope that I am not going too fast or using too many big words?) is back it up-now that is a very *simple* concept-if you cannot then it is a statement without truth-it's a lie and as such you are a liar. The same with the many other canards you have raised then when asked to actually back them up you have run away.

"I have comprehensively dealt with every issue you ever raised, "

Utter poppycock and a lie! all the links we have given show that when you are put under pressure to answer a point that *you* have raised-you have ran away! You never answered the point on QM(see above) or "the few labs that do radiometric dating" you can't because they are lies!

"sorry, but that would be a waste of time."

i am glad that you seem to be finally acknowledging that you are a waste of space.

Kindest regards

DD

ps. I still you are still hypocritically demanding answers from Graham when you have ran away from the many very *simple* questions that have been asked of you. However Graham is quite astute and he knows the type of person you are-a person who hits the complain button when someone has the temerity to disagree with you.

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

So where exactly have you "comprehensively dealt" with this issue?

PeterK

Can you remember anytime that OT has "comprehensively dealt with every issue you ever raised"-I am very perplexed! strange since the evidence(older links) that we have presented conclusively shows that OT (or as he was known PB/Mild/Original etc)has consistently ran away when asked questions. In my humble opinion Peter it is a quite a shocking example of the doublethink employed by those of a fundamentalist disposition. Judge Jones noted as much on his landmark ruling at Dover with the two Bible-believing Protestants on the school board being named as "liars". It does seem to be an unfortunate eg of this wacky faith.


OT

Have you ever told a lie?

OT

I have just read your reply to Graham in detail and it is marvellous in the richness of the use of fallacies, special pleading and just plain old classic PBisms!

"You have given me three sermons and four articles to read???? Cant you speak for yourself in plain language.... or are you floundering????"

ha! wonderful!

"Taking with the marriage of Adam and Eve being at the start of creation, it poses serious difficulties in reconciling this with mainstream geology."

You have never said a truer word! it does pose "serious difficulties" and it does show that taking a typical Ken Ham approach which you are doing here is fraught with difficulties and leads to extreme cognitive dissonance. What do we choose mainstream geology or your (or be correct Ken Hams)interpretation of Hebrew myth? well I choose mainstream geology and funnily enough so do you and Ken Ham-in the real world that is! :-)

DD

Hi DD,

Of course you right, pastor OT has run away from just about every challenge put to him, ignored all evidence presented, or quote-mined from it at best. Or made up quotes all together if no quote mines were available. He has not dealt with anything.

I enjoy how he can't come up with anything when I call him out so explicitly. What must the other readers be thinking? I put it to OT that is intellectually completely empty, and he can't come up with any substantial response. Is the mind hurting, OT?

greets,
Peter

Well GV I guess our common ground is quite interesting enough post 53.

1) We "don't like" evolutionary accounts of Genesis.

2) We both agree that Adam and Eve were real people, which we take on faith.

3) Neither do we like "young earth creationism".

My take on that is that I am uncomfortable with YEC folk asserting with apparent certainty things which dont present a good argument for (eg Gary Parkers argument on belly buttons, above).

I think the main difference between us is that you don't like to speculate on such matters while I find it interesting to explore their limits.

OT

ps GV

I notice you say you can work with other Christians who have the same creed as you but at the same time, I find your tone to other people who identify as Christians on the blog as appearing to be in some tension with that...

1 Cor 12:12-27

thoughts?

I (and others) see that you are running away again.

So...where did you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

and

"few labs do radiometric dating"

ps. "I find your tone to other people who identify as Christians on the blog"

You see OT there are many false Christians about-you know like liars, hypocrites etc

Matt 23:1-39

Thoughts? (I do realise that I stung you the last time I posted)

pps. I see you are hypocritically hounding other posters for answers when there are many that you have avoided for the past two years-how...hypocritical.

PK
There are really two issues there. 1) Those accounts that try to reconcile Gen 1-3 with evolution, in such a way that evolution is "read into" the text, or that try to work out how evolution fits into the account. So you get stories about God taking two apes and giving them souls etc.
This seems just as ridiculous as speculating about Adam's belly button.
2) I think this is probably where you are most interested - Where do I stand on intelligent design? Short answer - I dunno, I've too many other things to worry about.
You know that I don't think ID's a Scientific Theory. Of course that doesn't make it false. If you want to see my more detailed thoughts on the issue keep reading...
I don't think Darwinism can account for knowledge or morality. I'm also certain that Naturalism cannot account for consciousness or Mathematical truths. So I'm commited to Divine Intervention on some level. I'll leave you to decide if that brings me into conflict with Science.
On the other hand, I don't know enough about fossil evidence and genetics to reach a conclusion about Biological Complexity and Darwinism. And of course, even if (just for the sake of argument) neo-Darwinism cannot account for all biological complexity that does not mean that another naturalistic mechanism will not be discovered.
This is the big problem for ID. You can't knock down Darwin and assume Intelligent Intervention wins. Another problem is that Darwinism seems perfectly compatible with the Design Argument. So do we need to demolish Darwin to infer design?
I'm just happy to assume that Darwinism can account for all biological complexity.
Whether or not the *level* of complexity we encounter on Earth is highly probable given Darwinism is difficult for an outsider to get a grip on. Dawkins seems to say no, Simon Conway Morris says yes.
Even if it makes such complexity slightly more probable, Darwinism has some explanatory power. If Theism improves the probability of Natural Selection going down the "route" that led to highly complex biological life, then Theism may have explanatory power. The two need not conflict. The two taken together may give us the best explanation. Or Theism and Natural Selection may be a better explanation than Theism on it's own, or Natural Selection on it's own. I don't see the two as competing to explain biological complexity. They could be complementary.
One other thought that I'd like to explore. On naturalist assumptions the origin of life is a low probabililty event. But that isn't the case on Theistic assumptions. So what does that do to the thesis of common ancestry? Can someone be a thoroughgoing Darwinian, and reject common ancestry?
That was all just thinking out loud. I probably should sit down and work out where I stand on all this.

G Veale

OT
What is your point in post 72? I'm not sure.
If you are referring to my ribbing you, ask PK and DD to compare notes with you. I think I've been as fair as I possibly can be, and tried to "broker" some sort of "peace" that would leave the past in the past.
I've also spoke out in defence of fundamentalists on several occasions. Including you. So I'm not sure where I've let the side down.

(There are one or two fundies and evangelicals who have said outrageous things. So I've hit hard - and where possible e-mailed them to explain why).

Does anyone else perceive me as a Bible basher basher?

Graham

ref 72 - stop playing to the gallery and answer for yourself pls you chancer.

So you admit you hit hard against "fundies" and evangelcials who have said "outrageous" things do you?

Are you the self appointed W&T arbiter on what is "outrageous" and "extreme" Christian theology then?

(you have applied the term "extreme" to my posts recently).

Plus, you are no such thing as an honest broker you chancer - read those posts about/to me again.

And by the way I am not a fundamentalist - how can I be when I do not insist on a single firm interpretation of genesis??

I at least had the courtest to ask you what you believed. You havent a clue what my theology is.

I never censure other Christians here even if I dont agree with them.

To me it appears as though you continually put down Christians who are deemed "unacceptable" by the long term secular posters here in order to gain currency with the "intellectual" athiests.

I will not enter into a protracted debate on this matter, but if Christ accepts such people, alleged faults and all, then you are on thin ice accusing and "hitting hard" his brothers and sisters on the presumption of superior theology.

Superior theology which is afraid to discuss passages listed above in Matt and Jude...


Are you familiar with the passage which urges brothers against going to law against one another? Why are they urged not to? What principle therein might apply to relations with our brothers on this blog?


sincerely

OT

Graham

ref 72 - stop playing to the gallery and answer for yourself pls you chancer.

So you admit you hit hard against "fundies" and evangelcials who have said "outrageous" things do you?

Are you the self appointed W&T arbiter on what is "outrageous" and "extreme" Christian theology then?

you have applied the term "extreme" to my posts recently.

Plus..you are no such thing as an honest broker you chancer - read those posts about/to me again.

And by the way I am not a fundamentalist - how can I be when I do not insist on a single firm interpretation of genesis?

I at least had the courtesy to ask you what you believed. You havent a clue what my theology is.

I never censure other Christians here even if I dont agree with them.

To me it appears as though you continually put down Christians who are deemed "unacceptable" by the long term secular posters here in order to gain currency with the "intellectual" athiests.

I will not enter into a protracted debate on this matter, but if Christ accepts such people, alleged faults and all, then you are on thin ice accusing and "hitting hard" his brothers and sisters on the presumption of superior theology.

Superior theology which is afraid to discuss passages listed above in Matt and Jude...

Are you familiar with the passage which urges brothers against going to law against one another? Why are they urged not to? What principle therein might apply to relations with our brothers on this blog?


sincerely

OT

"Does anyone else perceive me as a Bible basher basher?"

No!

Graham I think that you are astute enough to realise what myself and other posters were talking about in the futility in attempting to "debate" OT.

Watch how many times I have asked some exceedingly simple points to OT, simply in a manner to get some answers to the points that *he* has raised! Notice how he runs away, notice the prevarication and bluster, notice how he squirms in increasingly pathetic attempts to dodge the myriad of lies he has told...

OT

So...where did you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

and

"few labs do radiometric dating"

Graham watch how OT ignores me-wonder why OT cannot show where he has "comprehensively dealt with every issue raised"-because he can't, because he didn't and this is just another pathetic prevarication.

Watch out Graham! and I see that OT is playing the nasty, wasty atheists card etc- a small question Graham who has been more reasonable on these threads?

Anyway...

Regards

DD

OT

ref the myriad of posts in this thread and others in the past two years which have asked very *simple* questions to the posts *you* have raised so stop playing to the gallery and answer for yourself pls you chancer.

"Are you the self appointed W&T arbiter on what is "outrageous" and "extreme" Christian theology then?"

Well you certainly seem to be OT-since you complain about posts on a regular basis, simply for having the temerity for disagreeing with you. Then again you were offered the chance to defend yourself but...you as ever ran away!

Plus..you are no such thing as an honest broker you chancer OT- read those posts about/to me again you know those many, many posts that you have run away from.

You are a fundamentalist OT! wonderfully, beautifully so! so full of twisted fundamentalist "logic"-it is a thing of wonder to see you constantly get foot stuck in mouth disease, contradict yourself, be a hypocrite etc

"the "intellectual" athiests."

Shucks you charmer! stop trying to suck up to us!

OT are you familiar with the passages in the Bible that relate to not telling lies, not bearing false witness, the passages in which Jesus talks about his dislike of sanctimonious, self-righteous religious hypocrites? Perhaps your Bible does not have these passages or maybe you are ignorant(and lets face it-you do have previous on being ignorant) or maybe you are annoyed that atheists know more about basic Bible teaching than you do.

Ah well

DD

OT
I have other Christians read my posts, and they do regularly.I talk to one other Christian poster about our posts.My full name is given, plus where I work and write from and what my job is.
(Lest there is any room for complaint, I attend Richhill Presbyterian Church. And my pastor knows that I post here.)

That's accountability.

Furthermore the three detailed articles outline my position accurately. I hold to the "framework" interpretation of Gen 1, a literal Adam, a literal fall, but physical death before the fall. I am unsure how to square Adam with the Scientific evidence, but see direct divine intervention at work for the reasons given to Peter Klaver (Darwinism cannot account for morality or human knowledge).
I don't see how I have dodged any issues, or how I have been unfair. Neither do those whom I know IN PERSON.
I will state what *I think* is extreme or outrageous. I haven't appointed myself as anything.(I was referring to Rev Ian Hall. And in his defence, he gave us his full name, and a web-site with e-mail attached. Which was a courageous and honest thing to do. My appreciation of the Rev has just deepened).
I wrote a very long post in your defence, which you removed. And I've just wasted my break typing this and not reading some of the worthwhile posts. So quit whingeing.

Graham Martin Veale
Armagh

And you're censuring me. Sheesh, talk about self-referential incoherence.

Where's my coffee?

Hello Graham,

Thanks for your reply to my post. I'm too busy at this week, hopefully I'll find some evening hour to respond. But just as a little teasing preview: without realizing it, you're merely pulling a god of the gaps probably. But more on that later.

And I see you're realizing what sort of character our non-favourite pastor is. Don't worry about Orthodox-tradition going at you as a fellow christian. He does that to other who don't share his views down to the last bit as well. Classic example is William himself. When he posts a thread to OTs liking, there is praise, William is talked up as 'Dr. Crawley', reference to academic title etc. And then on the next thread William is brutally criticized as the liberal agenda pushing, pro-gay, unfair, unbalanced BBC hack who hates creationists.

I like seeing OT lose all credibility with yet another fellow christian. :)

greets,
Peter

Hi Graham

Just to affirm the common ground we have ;-


1) Basic statements of faith in the Word of God etc

2) That Adam and Eve were real people

3) We are both sceptical of evolution

4) We both feel that ID *may* be true even if does not currently qualify as a scientific theory

5) We both dislike young earth creationism. (by this I mean speculating with absolute certainty what goes beyond the authority of scripture.)

6) We are both sceptical about the formal geolgy of YEC groups.


sincerely
OT


DD - you were not even able to sum up my arguments to date on the QM point. To help you undersyand - are memes proper science? Where is the evidence?

"DD - you were not even able to sum up my arguments to date on the QM point. To help you undersyand - are memes proper science? Where is the evidence?"

Oh dear prevarication and bluster noted yet again! Why can you not just back up your statement? I have never mentioned memes on here!why not stick to the point or are you scared?

Now this has been asked of you for over a year and a half(yawn), you have been asked over 30 times(yawn)-here goes...

So...where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

It is very odd that you cannot actually show any evidence to back up your view-why not give me one(you should of course be able to give me 100's)peer-reviewed paper-just one to start!

and

"few labs do radiometric dating"

I included the last one since I and others were eagerly waiting on your stunning info on the "assumptions of radiometric dating" :-/


I am expecting yet more prevarication and bluster :-(

You have been rumbled OT and the thing is we did not have to give anymore evidence to illustrate the type of person you are-you have done that very well in your replies to Graham-thank you OT! why not go and complain about posts-you are after all very good at that.

DD

Ps. the utter cheek and hypocrisy of you to label anyone a "chancer"!?unbelievable!

DD what do you think of Graham's views, as summarised in post 84?

;-)

OT I don't care :-/

Prevarication and bluster noted yet again...

Now...where have you "comprehensively dealt with" this issue?

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

and

"few labs do radiometric dating"

Hi Graham

I dont think my tone in my last email to you was helpful at all - so sorry..

But pls hear me out here;-

Are you really certain your minister has commissioned you to "hit hard" at other Christians if you disagree with their views on this blog?


It seems contradictory to brand my alleged views on the theology and radiomentric dating of creationism /ID as "extreme" and then to confess that you havent even taken the trouble to reach a thoughtful position yourself.

Can you help me understand this?


Also - why would you need to broker a peace deal for me with other posters if you admit you cant see that I have told any lies or used any deceptions in the past, as claimed.

The Godless ones have briefed extensivley against me and you say you cant see any evidence of lies - but you still side with them.

Then you offer to "broker a deal" as though you were in possession of the facts.

If had asked me my side of the story you would have got a very different picture about what has gone on here in the past.

But again, you havent shown any interest.

Can you see why I am struggling with your approach here?

sincerely
OT

"radiomentric dating of creationism /ID"!?

"The Godless ones have briefed extensivley against me"

Yes we have and provided links and raised issues that *you* raised and have simply asked *you* to back them up! bloody hell-it's not difficult!

Hello Graham,

The essential paragraph in your post where I think the major error creeps in is

"I don't think Darwinism can account for knowledge or morality. I'm also certain that Naturalism cannot account for consciousness or Mathematical truths. So I'm commited to Divine Intervention on some level."

You almost explain the error yourself in the paragraph that follows, when you warn against the false dichotomy of no scientific answer = credibility for god:

"And of course, even if (just for the sake of argument) neo-Darwinism cannot account for all biological complexity that does not mean that another naturalistic mechanism will not be discovered."

You are certain naturalism can't explain consciousness? Well not fully yet, in fact very little, but if we strongly extrapolate what little we know, the picture is that naturalism likely does provide an explanation for conscious thinking.

This will unfortunately get long and I don't have the reference for the paper that reported the experiment with mice brains detailed below. Feel free to whack me over the head for that. But we'll start of simple in a different area anyway.

Your ability to see, feel the heat of a burn, etc is pretty well explained as part of the physical world. I assume you know that and agree with it.

Would you say that thoughts of 'Hmmm, gorgeous woman in low top walking by, yummie, yummie, me getting so hot all of a sudden' are part of consciousness? They are certainly well understood and can even be artificially induced.

You could say that physical arousal, feeling the sun burn on your forehead, etc are not on the level of consciousness you were talking about. But how about the deep, loving memories of one of your deceased close relatives? Or the memories of when you proposed to your wife and she said yes? Would you say that those constitute a less trivial part of your conscious thinking? How about the memories of steps of reasoning? If so, I have bad news for your certainty about consciousness not being explicable as a collection of synapses bouncing around your brain and complex chemistry. Let me now recite what I remember from one of the more interesting papers I ever read.

At some point researchers had developed a hunch that memories in mice were tied to the adhesion of certain molecules. I don't remember if they tied to proteins or other molecules produced by proteins. But either way, without those proteins, the ability of the mice to store memories should be impaired. How to test the hypothesis?

Take two large cubical glass cages and set them next to each other. A board can be placed between them so that animals can't see the other cage. And a hole can be opened in both cages to allow animal to go from one cage to the other. Put 20 or so mice in one cage, put a snake in the other, board in between the cage. The mice have never seen a snake before. When he board between the cages is removed, some mice move away a bit from the side of the cage near the snake, but nothing too worried. Then a few unfortunate mice are taken from the one cage and fed to the snake, while the other mice can see what's going on. Then the hole between the cages is opened and the snake starts making its way into the cage with the mice. Terror among the mice! The snake is pulled back and then the animals are kept out of sight of each other for a long time. Then the cages are placed next to each other again with the board in between. The moment the board is removed and the mice see the snake again, they go nuts with fear. So they remember.

Then the experiment was repeated with mice whose DNA had been mucked up a bit, so that the protein suspected of playing a role in storing memories could not be produced. When the mice see some of their number being eaten and then see the snake move into their age, they go mad like the normal mice. But when shown the snake after having been separated from it for a while, their response is much muted compared to the berserk response of normal mice. Some of the manipulated mice hardly respond at all. A couple still get quite nervous.

So what does that all mean? The experiment adds some credibility to the idea that memories are at the very least partly down to the adhesion of molecules to other molecules in the brain. So science is closing in on the physical carriers of memories. One of the most fascinating things to come out of research sofar I think, even if it the experiment showed that more factors are involved (as expected of course), as the result was not a 100% on/off switch outcome.

So you think with certainty that the memories you retain about some intense, deep discussion you had at some stage, reliving how the reasoning steps in the discussion went is inexplicable by naturalism? Graham, Graham, Graham. You've just sought shelter in the home inhabited by the god o the gaps. You may rest assured, your god is not in a straight jacket yet, tied down to a hospital bed. But his manouvering room has already decreased a bit, so if he feels tired and wants to stretch his arms and legs while yawning, he might have a problem. And if past scientific progress is anything to go by, even that straight jacket he'll wear some decades from now will keep shrinking until he is squeezed out altogether.

So science has made some small tentative steps that allow it a (for now still very weak) claim on what consciousness is all about. What do you have in support of the statement that naturalism will never explain consciousness? I have a few suspicions as to what the answer might be. Perhaps you could tick the boxes that apply?

[ ] near-total lack of up-to-date scientific knowledge specific to the area

[ ] strong desire (although to you so normal now that it hardly registers in your thoughts anymore) to cling to your mentally comforting fairy tale word view, making your mind accept things that enforce it much more easily than things that would destroy it

[ ] reading too many of those books with pseudo-philosophical tosh that give you delusions of greater, deeper thinking ability than you actually posses (and you won't make it any better for yourself if you repeat you silverback-gorilla-pouncing-fists-on-chest, all capitols yelling that you are philosophically superior to me)

Peter

Peter
1) Yes, I agree that a gap in naturalism doesn't prove theism. That will take arguments that show that Theism makes the evidence more likely than Atheism, or that Theism offers a better explanation.
2) I apologise for the capitols. They will not happen again.
3) More than happy to take your word on the details of the experiment. The issue isn't the correlation of mental states with physical states. The question is, are physical states necessary and sufficient to produce mental states? And can naturalistic science produce an explanation for subjective experience?

As for pseudo-philosophical tosh, I've come across this objection from Helio and others. You start with a philosophical argument or position, (critcising design arguments etc.) Then if the design argument, the moral argument or whatever doesn't fold as easily as Dawkinseque atheism predicts, the arguments are dismissed as pseudo-philosphical. Bit like having your cake and eating it. Or saying that only bad philosophical arguments count.
Like it or not, you have a philosophical position - Naturalism. And Science depends on philosophical assumptions. Trivialising opposing views as "fairy tales" doesn't help Naturalism at all.
Now if you have a belief that *only* Science leads to truth, and that this belief does not need a non-scientific defence, then you have a presupposition that can't be falsified. It makes conversation rather difficult.
Analytic philosophy is just about clarifying and defending beliefs. And I won't use any argument that hasn't made it into a secular peer reviewed journal.

Just clarifying a little, and I'll try to type up the substantive arguments tonight if you still want to fire ahead.
And then I'll get around to Darwinism.

GV

Pk
Have you noticed that we're both short of time, we're summarisng our views and offering peliminary comments as briefly as possible, and we've typed half a page each?

GV

Oh, and I wouldn't make claim to an ability to think deeply on any level, philosophical or otherwise. I aspire to the shallows.

OT
1) I never said YEC was extreme. But it is is my opinion. I don't need my ministers permission to say that.
2) I repeatedly said that I did not know all the facts. I was always careful to respond in terms of "if what you say is true, then such behavior would be unreasonable."
It would be up to you to defend your actions. But we were, as I understood it, talking about two different posters? PB and yourself? That's how I agreed to view things, isn't it?

I don't know anything about PB, and I'm taking you as I find you. But surely I can reserve the right to disagree with other Christians?

GVeale

Hi Graham

you did use the term "extreme" in post 34 but latterly declined to justify it when asked to discuss related texts.

What we have done is not equal;- I am defending myself from direct challenges you make to me on onconsistent grounds.

While I am asking you to be more aware of repeated subtle put-downs to other professing Christians (not me) that are neither constructive nor gracious.

I get the impression you have "heard" my point.

I hope we can leave it there.

regards
OT

DD

You dont even understand the point I made - and explained - ref quantum mechanics.

ie if we can accept the existence of items such as multiverses as scientific reality despite there being no empircal evidence for them, then where is the standard for rejecting and accepting other hypotheses?

A secular agenda can move the goalposts to suit.

OT

Ah - my name being used in vain there, Graham! Perhaps I need to jump in a wee bit re the mental states malarkey. We know the brain exists; we know that human consciousness depends critically on brain function; we know that the chemical/electrical status of the brain is associated with changes in mental states, AND we know (from experiment) that tinkering with the neurochemistry of the brain can alter subjective experience.

So we have lots and lots of reasons for suggesting that what we call "consciousness" or "subjective experience" is dependent on brain function, rather than being separate.

This is just a starter, a base-point. If you are suggesting that there is a "something else" - an extra layer on consciousness that is imposed from outside, rather than emergent from the complex system, you will need to come up with some evidence for that.

Suppose I were to build a brain from scratch, using cel-cultured neurons from (say) chimps. I would make it anatomically identical to a human brain; I would wire up all the neurons the same way, and I would keep it perfused and stimulated in a vat. I would verify that it does everything a normal brain can do - I could process its neural inputs so that it could sense the world around it, and outputs, so that it could communicate. Would it be a human brain or a chimp brain? Would it be conscious? How would it differ from a "natural" brain, grown in the cell culture medium that is the human body?

If you believe in "souls", would god give it one? Or who gives them out? How would we know if a person did not have a "soul"?

-H

OT
I referred to "operationalism" as an extreme interpretation of science. And I argued that it could (should?)follow from YEC logically, but that YEC does not typically make the claim.
I've heard your point, and disagree - I've never been subtle.
As for "self-appointed" anything - nope; I might have aspired to savant once, but I seemed to get stuck on idiot.

GVeale

Durn it H - now I have to type up a detailed reply.
Lemme see - in this order I've to deal with
1) Naturalism and consciousness
2) Naturalism and morality
3) Naturalism and human knowledge
4) Darwimism and the design argument.

Not all at once, surely? I'll get responses down as quick as I can.

GV

Give me till Fri Afternoon... if I'm going to screw up an argument I might as well do it in style.

G Veale